Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest rscsjsuso5

Guest rscsjsuso5

I'm Chinese living in the sfbayarea and lmao at this topic, we have a pic of a j-15 then it ends up in a debate of the made in china issue and copying Russian equip.

to sum it up - slartibarfast - china won't have a carrier until at least ten more years, reason is that china wants to produce one of its own , meaning china doesn't want o copy but to study the parts of the varyag . the Chinese also believes by a code in producing military equipment " never copy foreign sources also create a difference with Chinese flavor." also the shape the varyag is in right now would be very hard to bring it back to life.

now to gepard - it might be unlicensed but think of this china might just use j-10 canard technology onto a su 27sk , very debatable .

to the stig - very debatable on the issue of made in china, don't want to get into that issue might be best put forward in the arena section of the forum.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That`s true JM, but still asking myself why russia/soviets never had a realy counterpart in their navy in comparison with the Carrier taskgroup of the americans?! No budget?! Spend to much steel on tanks?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

US carrier task forces were equiped with attack carriers. The soviets built such type of carriers in the 80th with the Tblissi and Riga, later renamed in Kusnetzow and Varjag.

In the 70th they had the Kiew class, which was officially an aircraft carrying anti submarine cruiser. The reason was, that the carriers could only be built at the Black Sea Wharfs. To come out of the black sea you must pass the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, which are turkish. There was a treaty in the 20th or 30th of last century beween Turkey and USSR which defines which type of soviet warships could pass the Dardanelles. And Carriers were not included in this treaty.

All other soviet wharfs had not had the capability to built such big ships like carriers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interesting fact, but as you wrote, the treaty was signed in the 20`s and 30`s, some laws and agrements realy need to be renewed and optimized for the modern times. Would be realy cool see some russian nuclear Fleet Carrier! Same for the chinese Navy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Russians could've built a shipyard in Vladivostok if they'd cared that much. I think it was just a case of picking their strengths. Unlike the west, Russia had no history of naval aviation or carriers. Post-WWII, which was when carriers became important, jets were the big thing and they weren't well-suited to carrier ops at first.

Either way, nuclear bombs were the important weapon and they invested heavily in them, long-range bombers, and ICBMs. Unlike the US, whose allies were all overseas, the Russians had all their allies over land. You didn't need a carrier to defend the coastline, only to fight at sea or someone else's coastline, and that's not what their doctrine was. They built the Kiev class to counter our missile subs, which they saw as a much larger threat, as well as swelling the ranks of their subs, both attack and missile.

Frankly, the Russians wouldn't have had much use for a carrier anyway. If they'd built some, they just would've faced overwhelming opposition from NATO ASuW assets and risked losing them in the opening salvo of a battle anyway. Instead they decided to make OUR CBGs the prime target and dedicated assets to that end. Where would Russian carriers go? Cuba? Libya? Poland? Bulgaria? Vietnam? Russian amphibious assaults are something they'd only need against the US, UK, and Japan, and in the nuclear age that would be of questionable value...you nuke the target, you don't send men there. They didn't have to worry about protecting their allies half a world away, as Cuba was the only one they ever paid any attention to and I think we all know if push came to shove they didn't think Cuba was worth it.